This is incorrect. We don’t say that Mary had to be sinless in order for Jesus to be born sinless; Jesus was sinless by reason of the Hypostatic Union. What we say is that Mary was immaculately conceived because it was becoming for the Mother of God to be free from original sin.So if you’re going to argue that God had to keep Mary sinless in order for Jesus to be born sinless, then the original objector is spot on to argue that God–by that logic–would have had to keep Mary’s mother free from original sin as well.
You Catholics need to get on the same page here. Some of you are rejecting the “it’s fitting” argument (conveniens) and some of you are defending it. Others are arguing for that the Immaculate Conception is integral to the Incarnation and so–in some sense–necessary for the preservation of Jesus from sin. I don’t think either argument actually holds any water. Be that as it may, for those who do speak of the IC as way of “insulating” Jesus’ humanity from the sin of Adam, the old objection that Mary’s mother would have needed “insulation” is back on the table.This is incorrect. We don’t say that Mary had to be sinless in order for Jesus to be born sinless; Jesus was sinless by reason of the Hypostatic Union. What we say is that Mary was immaculately conceived because it was becoming for the Mother of God to be free from original sin.
Why? Everyone else who ever responded to God’s call did so as a sinner who had first been moved by God’s grace to respond. Why posit an exception for Mary?from the Catechism (490):
In order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God’s grace….
First of all, the teaching of the Immaculate Conception does not have anything to do with Jesus persevation from sin. Jesus did not need any intervention to protect Him from sin because He is God, and He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Mary needed intervention because she was physically conceived by two humans.You Catholics need to get on the same page here. Some of you are rejecting the “it’s fitting” argument (conveniens) and some of you are defending it. Others are arguing for that the Immaculate Conception is integral to the Incarnation and so–in some sense–necessary for the preservation of Jesus from sin. I don’t think either argument actually holds any water. Be that as it may, for those who do speak of the IC as way of “insulating” Jesus’ humanity from the sin of Adam, the old objection that Mary’s mother would have needed “insulation” is back on the table.
If we we say, “It’s fitting that Jesus be born of a sinless virgin,” and therefore it is “fitting” that God would intervene to prevent Mary from contracting original sin, then why can’t we argue that it would have been equally fitting for Anna to have been immaculately conceived, and so on and so on? Once you make that argument, whether you base it on some kind of “necessity” or “fittingness” you end up special pleading for an intervention at Mary’s conception, when God could have just easily done it at Jesus’ conception.
It was in view of Mary’s mission. She received Jesus in a different way (bearing Him in her womb and being His mother) than we did. God already planned to make a woman that Satan and his offspring (sin) will not touch in Gen 3: 15. If Jesus is the offspring that crushed the serpant head, than the woman has to be Mary. Luke 1: 28 shows Mary being pure because the angel St. Gabriel called her “full of grace.” I know Protestant Bibles says “highly favoured” because the Greek word for “favour” is “charitoo.” However, the Greek used the passive perfect participle of “charitoo”, which is “kecharitomene.” That means Mary already had God grace before St. Gabriel gave came to her, and she would remain “full of grace” (meaning she would remain pure) throughout her life.Why? Everyone else who ever responded to God’s call did so as a sinner who had first been moved by God’s grace to respond. Why posit an exception for Mary?
I wasn’t paying attention to your comment. I am trying to explain this teaching and answer Agent second question which states:You seem to have a circular argument here. Since there was an IC, then we read back into these biblical statements support for the IC.
If there were no IC, then we would need to interpret these versus in a different way or these versus would not even be there. God’s hand is not forced by prophecy; God is the author of prophecy. Prophecy reveals what God has done and what God will do. If God had chosen to be born of a sinner, there would be no prophecy concerning the IC.
The argument here is, God did not NEED to be born of an sinless mother. God chose this as the best action for this world in that it gives us a perfect model for our lives.
Until we reach an understanding of the topic of discussion we will continue to talk past each other. I understand the need for the IC based on the revelation of God. Some of your arguments are very good considering what God has done. But I was speaking of what was needed for salvation. And I believe God could have saved us via a perfect sacrifice without an IC’d mother.
No, God does not need to make a sinless mother, but He did it for us because we need it. We need it because we need the prophecy to be fulfilled. Yes, God can go back on His promise, but He didn’t because He love us. We need His promise because we need His love.If Evan is correct, what need is there for Immaculate Conception? It is certainly a bone of contention with non-Catholic Christians. . .
Thank you for your explanation. It is better than mine, lol.I don’t think you need to be so hard on vwtaylorii. Reminding us all of the biblical witness to the IC harms no one, surely.
As to your point, of course God could have used any method of his choosing to save mankind. The fact that he didn’t is significant, not immaterial. Mary is the Second Eve, not just the Mother of Jesus. That means she is the mother of all believers. And as such God wished that the Second Eve be pure in every way. God is recreating the human race with Mary, not just setting up the redemption as a solitary act (not that you are trying to make that point, but some would).
Also, consider what Satan would have tried to make of Jesus’ mother’s impurity. Considering the flesh of Jesus is the flesh of Mary, it was God’s plan from the beginning to make Jesus’ mother pure and stainless. It wasn’t “fitting” in the narrowest sense of the word, but in the fullest sense possible.
And was confirmed by a divine revelation by the Lady at Lourdes (I believe…please correct me on this) to St. Bernadette.Mary was conceived without sin because she is the Ark of the New Covenant,
which is foreshadowed by the Ark of the Old Covenant.
scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-II
Sheol is not “hell” as Christians understand it. Sheol is simply the abode of the dead - of both the righteous and unrighteous (equivalent to “Hade.”). So that God is in Sheol does not demonstrate that God would have been born of something evil.God’s holiness in intrinsic in His very existence. God is present in all creation, hell as well as heaven. Read the psalm 139:
If God decided it would be better to have been born of a sinner, that, he would have done. For His decisions are perfect. There was no better choice than to be born of a sinless mother.Code:Where can I hide from your spirit? From your presence, where can I flee? If I ascend to the heavens, you are there; if I lie down in Sheol, you are there too. If I fly with the wings of dawn and alight beyond the sea, Even there your hand will guide me, your right hand hold me fast. If I say, "Surely darkness shall hide me, and night shall be my light" -- Darkness is not dark for you, and night shines as the day. Darkness and light are but one. You formed my inmost being; you knit me in my mother's womb. I praise you, so wonderfully you made me; wonderful are your works! My very self you knew;
Whether one agrees with the fittingness argument, Catholics generally agree that the IC is integral to the Incarnation. But, as others have pointed out, not for the purpose of preserving Jesus’ sinlessness, since Jesus would have been sinless as the God-man regardless. The purpose, according to the Fathers, was so Mary could be the tabernacle of our Lord from whom He would draw the flesh that saves us. It is the necessary holiness of the Tabernacle that is at issue - in view of the utter majesty of God - not the holiness of He Who was to dwell in that Tabernacle (i.e., Mary).You Catholics need to get on the same page here. Some of you are rejecting the “it’s fitting” argument (conveniens) and some of you are defending it. Others are arguing for that the Immaculate Conception is integral to the Incarnation and so–in some sense–necessary for the preservation of Jesus from sin. I don’t think either argument actually holds any water. Be that as it may, for those who do speak of the IC as way of “insulating” Jesus’ humanity from the sin of Adam, the old objection that Mary’s mother would have needed “insulation” is back on the table.
If we we say, “It’s fitting that Jesus be born of a sinless virgin,” and therefore it is “fitting” that God would intervene to prevent Mary from contracting original sin, then why can’t we argue that it would have been equally fitting for Anna to have been immaculately conceived, and so on and so on? Once you make that argument, whether you base it on some kind of “necessity” or “fittingness” you end up special pleading for an intervention at Mary’s conception, when God could have just easily done it at Jesus’ conception.
Because Anna wasn’t the Mother of God. It was fitting for only the Mother of God.If we we say, “It’s fitting that Jesus be born of a sinless virgin,” and therefore it is “fitting” that God would intervene to prevent Mary from contracting original sin, then why can’t we argue that it would have been equally fitting for Anna to have been immaculately conceived, and so on and so on?
Mary’s IC has nothing to do with Jesus being sinless.Once you make that argument, whether you base it on some kind of “necessity” or “fittingness” you end up special pleading for an intervention at Mary’s conception, when God could have just easily done it at Jesus’ conception.
Marduk. I agree concerning Sheol. That psalm was to introduce the vastness of God’s presence. As I understand it, for anyone to continue to exist, they must, in a sense, be in the presence of God. Not that they would know it, but nothing exists apart from God.Dear brother Evan,
Sheol is not “hell” as Christians understand it. Sheol is simply the abode of the dead - of both the righteous and unrighteous (equivalent to “Hade.”). So that God is in Sheol does not demonstrate that God would have been born of something evil.
Blessings,
Marduk
Okay…got it…integral to the Incarnation, and perhaps fitting, but not–strictly speaking–necessary. Of course, being born of a virgin isn’t necessary either–just one of God’s wild ideas.Whether one agrees with the fittingness argument, Catholics generally agree that the IC is integral to the Incarnation. But, as others have pointed out, not for the purpose of preserving Jesus’ sinlessness, since Jesus would have been sinless as the God-man regardless. The purpose, according to the Fathers, was so Mary could be the tabernacle of our Lord from whom He would draw the flesh that saves us. It is the necessary holiness of the Tabernacle that is at issue - in view of the utter majesty of God - not the holiness of He Who was to dwell in that Tabernacle (i.e., Mary).
Why? You simply make assertions but give no reasons for them (see my motto below). It seems that Catholics have to special plead in order to argue for the fittingness/necessity of Mary being sinless from conception.Because Anna wasn’t the Mother of God. It was fitting for only the Mother of God.
Do you believe in the authencity (as investigated and approved by the RCC, and witnessed by thousands) of the Marian apparitions at Lourdes, France and Fatima, Portugal?Why? You simply make assertions but give no reasons for them (see my motto below). It seems that Catholics have to special plead in order to argue for the fittingness/necessity of Mary being sinless from conception.
Even more fitting (in my opinion) and completely necessary: That Jesus was immaculately conceived in the womb of his sinful mother. Fitting because she shared in the same fallen human condition the rest of us suffer from and thus she too was redeemed in the very same way we all are. Necessary since the only way for Jesus’ human nature not to be tainted by Adam’s sin was if he created for himself a sinless human nature to unite to his divine nature.
Since no one thinks it’s necessary for Mary to have been immaculately conceived and since what is and what is not fitting is a matter of opinion, perhaps it’s time to look at the evidence for such a belief. Why and whether the IC was needed/fitting ought to be subordinated to the question of whether it took place at all. For if there is no reason to believe it took place in the first place, then the entire question of its fittingness/necessity becomes quite moot.
No, because God wasn’t just giving us a one-off redemption, but recreating the human race. As there is a new, Second Adam in Christ, so God created a new, Second Eve in Mary. She is the Mother of All Believers as the Mother of God (Theotokos). All who are baptized into Christ are new creations due to the Incarnation. Jesus’ flesh is the flesh of Mary, she whom the Angel Gabriel hailed as “full of grace” because she was preserved free of original sin. In other words, instead of allowing her to sin and then be saved, Mary was saved from sinning and the stain of original sin through Christ’s redemptive act, which is eternal not stuck in some kind of time warp.Why? You simply make assertions but give no reasons for them (see my motto below). It seems that Catholics have to special plead in order to argue for the fittingness/necessity of Mary being sinless from conception.
Even more fitting (in my opinion) and completely necessary: That Jesus was immaculately conceived in the womb of his sinful mother. Fitting because she shared in the same fallen human condition the rest of us suffer from and thus she too was redeemed in the very same way we all are. Necessary since the only way for Jesus’ human nature not to be tainted by Adam’s sin was if he created for himself a sinless human nature to unite to his divine nature.
Not so. If you take that line of reasoning then there would have been no redemption since there was no need for God to redeem us. He could have wiped out humanity after the fall of Adam and Eve and started all over again, but he didn’t do that. We cannot base belief on what we think God needed to do/didn’t need to do. No “investigation” needs to be done of the dogma of the IC. It’s already been fully investigated and approved based on all the evidence of Sacred Tradition, which the constant teaching of the Apostles handed down through their successors, including Sacred Scripture and oral traditions that St. Paul referred to. It’s all there for anyone interested to see.Since no one thinks it’s necessary for Mary to have been immaculately conceived and since what is and what is not fitting is a matter of opinion, perhaps it’s time to look at the evidence for such a belief. Why and whether the IC was needed/fitting ought to be subordinated to the question of whether it took place at all. For if there is no reason to believe it took place in the first place, then the entire question of its fittingness/necessity becomes quite moot.
Mardukm gave a good reason why in post #30 and others pointing to Mary as the second Eve and the fulfillment of Genesis 3:15 also answer the why; I didn’t think I needed to reiterate it.Why? You simply make assertions but give no reasons for them (see my motto below). It seems that Catholics have to special plead in order to argue for the fittingness/necessity of Mary being sinless from conception.
The doctrine of Mary being sinless goes way back in Church history, perhaps you should look at the historical evidence for such a belief and reconsider why you don’t agree.Since no one thinks it’s necessary for Mary to have been immaculately conceived and since what is and what is not fitting is a matter of opinion, perhaps it’s time to look at the evidence for such a belief. Why and whether the IC was needed/fitting ought to be subordinated to the question of whether it took place at all. For if there is no reason to believe it took place in the first place, then the entire question of its fittingness/necessity becomes quite moot.
Nope.Do you believe in the authencity (as investigated and approved by the RCC, and witnessed by thousands) of the Marian apparitions at Lourdes, France and Fatima, Portugal?